Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1011

control, N = 511

treatment, N = 501

p-value2

age

100

49.90 ± 13.25 (25 - 74)

50.31 ± 13.31 (25 - 74)

49.50 ± 13.32 (28 - 73)

0.761

Unknown

1

1

0

gender

101

0.692

f

75 (74%)

37 (73%)

38 (76%)

m

26 (26%)

14 (27%)

12 (24%)

occupation

101

0.735

day_training

2 (2.0%)

2 (3.9%)

0 (0%)

full_time

13 (13%)

6 (12%)

7 (14%)

homemaker

8 (7.9%)

5 (9.8%)

3 (6.0%)

other

2 (2.0%)

0 (0%)

2 (4.0%)

part_time

17 (17%)

8 (16%)

9 (18%)

retired

25 (25%)

12 (24%)

13 (26%)

self_employ

4 (4.0%)

2 (3.9%)

2 (4.0%)

student

2 (2.0%)

0 (0%)

2 (4.0%)

t_and_e

2 (2.0%)

1 (2.0%)

1 (2.0%)

unemploy

26 (26%)

15 (29%)

11 (22%)

marital

101

0.699

cohabitation

1 (1.0%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.0%)

divore

10 (9.9%)

7 (14%)

3 (6.0%)

in_relationship

1 (1.0%)

1 (2.0%)

0 (0%)

married

25 (25%)

13 (25%)

12 (24%)

none

56 (55%)

26 (51%)

30 (60%)

seperation

3 (3.0%)

2 (3.9%)

1 (2.0%)

widow

5 (5.0%)

2 (3.9%)

3 (6.0%)

edu

101

0.555

bachelor

26 (26%)

9 (18%)

17 (34%)

diploma

20 (20%)

13 (25%)

7 (14%)

hd_ad

3 (3.0%)

2 (3.9%)

1 (2.0%)

postgraduate

8 (7.9%)

4 (7.8%)

4 (8.0%)

primary

5 (5.0%)

2 (3.9%)

3 (6.0%)

secondary_1_3

13 (13%)

8 (16%)

5 (10%)

secondary_4_5

23 (23%)

12 (24%)

11 (22%)

secondary_6_7

3 (3.0%)

1 (2.0%)

2 (4.0%)

fam_income

101

0.874

10001_12000

4 (4.0%)

1 (2.0%)

3 (6.0%)

12001_14000

5 (5.0%)

2 (3.9%)

3 (6.0%)

14001_16000

6 (5.9%)

2 (3.9%)

4 (8.0%)

16001_18000

3 (3.0%)

1 (2.0%)

2 (4.0%)

18001_20000

4 (4.0%)

3 (5.9%)

1 (2.0%)

20001_above

19 (19%)

9 (18%)

10 (20%)

2001_4000

15 (15%)

10 (20%)

5 (10%)

4001_6000

11 (11%)

5 (9.8%)

6 (12%)

6001_8000

10 (9.9%)

6 (12%)

4 (8.0%)

8001_10000

7 (6.9%)

3 (5.9%)

4 (8.0%)

below_2000

17 (17%)

9 (18%)

8 (16%)

medication

101

89 (88%)

46 (90%)

43 (86%)

0.515

onset_duration

99

14.70 ± 10.49 (0 - 56)

15.85 ± 11.49 (1 - 56)

13.47 ± 9.27 (0 - 35)

0.260

Unknown

2

0

2

onset_age

98

35.44 ± 14.50 (10 - 65)

34.45 ± 13.56 (10 - 61)

36.48 ± 15.50 (15 - 65)

0.492

Unknown

3

1

2

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1011

control, N = 511

treatment, N = 501

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

101

3.09 ± 1.19 (1 - 5)

3.16 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)

3.02 ± 1.15 (1 - 5)

0.567

recovery_stage_b

101

17.94 ± 2.69 (9 - 24)

17.76 ± 2.74 (9 - 23)

18.12 ± 2.65 (13 - 24)

0.510

ras_confidence

101

30.13 ± 5.01 (18 - 45)

29.73 ± 4.33 (19 - 40)

30.54 ± 5.64 (18 - 45)

0.417

ras_willingness

101

12.03 ± 2.01 (7 - 15)

11.88 ± 1.96 (8 - 15)

12.18 ± 2.07 (7 - 15)

0.459

ras_goal

101

17.46 ± 3.05 (11 - 25)

17.33 ± 2.86 (12 - 24)

17.58 ± 3.26 (11 - 25)

0.687

ras_reliance

101

13.24 ± 2.89 (7 - 20)

13.12 ± 2.65 (8 - 18)

13.36 ± 3.13 (7 - 20)

0.675

ras_domination

101

9.96 ± 2.34 (3 - 15)

10.27 ± 2.24 (3 - 15)

9.64 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

0.175

symptom

101

30.15 ± 9.59 (14 - 56)

31.22 ± 9.76 (14 - 55)

29.06 ± 9.38 (15 - 56)

0.261

slof_work

101

22.61 ± 4.72 (10 - 30)

22.37 ± 4.21 (13 - 30)

22.86 ± 5.22 (10 - 30)

0.606

slof_relationship

101

25.58 ± 5.86 (11 - 35)

24.92 ± 5.77 (13 - 35)

26.26 ± 5.94 (11 - 35)

0.253

satisfaction

101

20.56 ± 6.87 (5 - 35)

19.18 ± 6.43 (5 - 31)

21.98 ± 7.08 (5 - 35)

0.040

mhc_emotional

101

11.16 ± 3.83 (3 - 18)

10.76 ± 3.66 (3 - 17)

11.56 ± 4.00 (4 - 18)

0.300

mhc_social

101

15.03 ± 5.49 (5 - 30)

15.06 ± 5.42 (7 - 30)

15.00 ± 5.62 (5 - 27)

0.957

mhc_psychological

101

21.97 ± 6.28 (6 - 36)

21.57 ± 5.91 (9 - 36)

22.38 ± 6.67 (6 - 36)

0.519

resilisnce

101

16.79 ± 4.56 (6 - 30)

16.29 ± 4.16 (6 - 24)

17.30 ± 4.93 (7 - 30)

0.270

social_provision

101

13.68 ± 2.83 (5 - 20)

13.16 ± 2.38 (8 - 20)

14.22 ± 3.16 (5 - 20)

0.059

els_value_living

101

17.15 ± 3.02 (5 - 25)

16.67 ± 2.46 (12 - 22)

17.64 ± 3.46 (5 - 25)

0.106

els_life_fulfill

101

12.74 ± 3.37 (4 - 20)

11.96 ± 3.19 (5 - 19)

13.54 ± 3.39 (4 - 20)

0.018

els

101

29.89 ± 5.85 (9 - 45)

28.63 ± 4.92 (18 - 38)

31.18 ± 6.46 (9 - 45)

0.028

social_connect

101

26.53 ± 9.16 (8 - 48)

27.69 ± 8.19 (8 - 45)

25.36 ± 10.00 (8 - 48)

0.204

shs_agency

101

14.50 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

13.78 ± 4.58 (3 - 21)

15.24 ± 5.31 (3 - 24)

0.143

shs_pathway

101

16.51 ± 3.94 (4 - 24)

16.02 ± 3.79 (8 - 24)

17.02 ± 4.06 (4 - 24)

0.203

shs

101

31.02 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)

29.80 ± 8.02 (13 - 45)

32.26 ± 8.89 (7 - 48)

0.148

esteem

101

12.66 ± 1.76 (10 - 20)

12.88 ± 1.66 (10 - 18)

12.44 ± 1.84 (10 - 20)

0.207

mlq_search

101

14.89 ± 3.52 (3 - 21)

14.61 ± 3.25 (6 - 21)

15.18 ± 3.78 (3 - 21)

0.416

mlq_presence

101

13.38 ± 4.30 (3 - 21)

13.20 ± 3.70 (5 - 21)

13.56 ± 4.86 (3 - 21)

0.673

mlq

101

28.27 ± 6.99 (6 - 42)

27.80 ± 6.10 (12 - 40)

28.74 ± 7.82 (6 - 42)

0.503

empower

101

19.39 ± 4.26 (6 - 30)

18.84 ± 3.90 (11 - 30)

19.94 ± 4.57 (6 - 30)

0.197

ismi_resistance

101

14.64 ± 2.59 (5 - 20)

14.31 ± 2.13 (10 - 19)

14.98 ± 2.97 (5 - 20)

0.198

ismi_discrimation

101

11.44 ± 3.14 (5 - 20)

12.14 ± 2.89 (5 - 19)

10.72 ± 3.26 (5 - 20)

0.023

sss_affective

101

10.01 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

10.41 ± 3.45 (3 - 18)

9.60 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

0.267

sss_behavior

101

9.65 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

10.22 ± 3.88 (3 - 18)

9.08 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

0.138

sss_cognitive

101

8.05 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)

8.57 ± 3.83 (3 - 18)

7.52 ± 3.50 (3 - 18)

0.154

sss

101

27.71 ± 10.24 (9 - 54)

29.20 ± 10.11 (9 - 54)

26.20 ± 10.25 (9 - 54)

0.142

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.16

0.163

2.84, 3.48

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.137

0.231

-0.590, 0.317

0.555

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.137

0.244

-0.342, 0.615

0.577

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.421

0.351

-0.267, 1.11

0.234

Pseudo R square

0.026

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.8

0.396

17.0, 18.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.355

0.563

-0.747, 1.46

0.529

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.221

0.553

-1.31, 0.864

0.691

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.588

0.796

-0.972, 2.15

0.463

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.718

28.3, 31.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.815

1.020

-1.18, 2.81

0.426

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.805

0.766

-0.696, 2.31

0.298

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.02

1.103

-1.15, 3.18

0.361

Pseudo R square

0.028

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.9

0.284

11.3, 12.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.298

0.403

-0.492, 1.09

0.462

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.642

0.302

-1.23, -0.050

0.038

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.755

0.435

-0.098, 1.61

0.088

Pseudo R square

0.030

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.3

0.444

16.5, 18.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.247

0.632

-0.991, 1.48

0.697

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.435

0.506

-1.43, 0.556

0.393

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.54

0.728

0.115, 2.97

0.038

Pseudo R square

0.029

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.404

12.3, 13.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.242

0.574

-0.883, 1.37

0.674

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.358

0.411

-0.449, 1.16

0.388

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.01

0.593

-0.152, 2.17

0.094

Pseudo R square

0.035

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.3

0.321

9.65, 10.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.635

0.456

-1.53, 0.260

0.167

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.288

0.434

-1.14, 0.563

0.510

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.42

0.625

0.197, 2.65

0.026

Pseudo R square

0.029

symptom

(Intercept)

31.2

1.336

28.6, 33.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.16

1.899

-5.88, 1.57

0.259

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.363

1.104

-2.53, 1.80

0.744

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.874

1.592

-3.99, 2.25

0.585

Pseudo R square

0.018

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.4

0.660

21.1, 23.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.487

0.939

-1.35, 2.33

0.605

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.175

0.664

-1.48, 1.13

0.793

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.088

0.957

-1.79, 1.96

0.927

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.9

0.813

23.3, 26.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.34

1.155

-0.925, 3.60

0.249

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.14

0.771

-2.66, 0.369

0.144

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.53

1.111

-0.653, 3.70

0.175

Pseudo R square

0.030

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.2

0.965

17.3, 21.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.80

1.372

0.114, 5.49

0.043

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.871

1.078

-1.24, 2.98

0.422

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.080

1.553

-3.12, 2.96

0.959

Pseudo R square

0.042

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.8

0.532

9.72, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.795

0.756

-0.687, 2.28

0.295

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.361

0.489

-0.598, 1.32

0.464

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.452

0.705

-1.83, 0.930

0.524

Pseudo R square

0.008

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.802

13.5, 16.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.059

1.140

-2.29, 2.17

0.959

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.622

0.865

-1.07, 2.32

0.475

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.476

1.246

-2.92, 1.97

0.704

Pseudo R square

0.002

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.921

19.8, 23.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.811

1.309

-1.75, 3.38

0.537

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.774

0.960

-1.11, 2.66

0.424

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.505

1.383

-3.22, 2.21

0.716

Pseudo R square

0.004

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.626

15.1, 17.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.01

0.890

-0.739, 2.75

0.261

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.128

0.717

-1.28, 1.53

0.859

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.32

1.033

-0.700, 3.35

0.205

Pseudo R square

0.037

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.400

12.4, 13.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.06

0.568

-0.051, 2.18

0.064

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.535

0.475

-1.47, 0.397

0.265

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.620

0.685

-0.721, 1.96

0.368

Pseudo R square

0.052

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.7

0.431

15.8, 17.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.973

0.613

-0.228, 2.18

0.115

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.240

0.488

-0.716, 1.20

0.624

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.180

0.703

-1.20, 1.56

0.798

Pseudo R square

0.030

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.0

0.454

11.1, 12.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.58

0.645

0.315, 2.84

0.016

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.630

0.413

-0.180, 1.44

0.133

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.311

0.595

-1.48, 0.856

0.603

Pseudo R square

0.054

els

(Intercept)

28.6

0.813

27.0, 30.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.55

1.155

0.288, 4.82

0.029

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.851

0.756

-0.630, 2.33

0.265

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.088

1.089

-2.22, 2.05

0.936

Pseudo R square

0.049

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.7

1.304

25.1, 30.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.33

1.853

-5.96, 1.31

0.212

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.10

1.173

-1.20, 3.40

0.353

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.94

1.691

-6.26, 0.371

0.087

Pseudo R square

0.037

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.695

12.4, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.46

0.988

-0.481, 3.39

0.144

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.126

0.689

-1.22, 1.48

0.856

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.643

0.992

-1.30, 2.59

0.520

Pseudo R square

0.030

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.0

0.545

15.0, 17.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.00

0.775

-0.518, 2.52

0.199

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.126

0.533

-0.918, 1.17

0.814

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.157

0.767

-1.66, 1.35

0.838

Pseudo R square

0.015

shs

(Intercept)

29.8

1.178

27.5, 32.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.46

1.674

-0.826, 5.74

0.145

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.253

1.118

-1.94, 2.44

0.822

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.492

1.611

-2.67, 3.65

0.761

Pseudo R square

0.025

esteem

(Intercept)

12.9

0.225

12.4, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.442

0.320

-1.07, 0.185

0.170

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.096

0.318

-0.720, 0.527

0.764

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.376

0.458

-0.521, 1.27

0.416

Pseudo R square

0.013

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.6

0.485

13.7, 15.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.572

0.689

-0.779, 1.92

0.408

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.208

0.609

-0.986, 1.40

0.734

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.320

0.877

-2.04, 1.40

0.716

Pseudo R square

0.005

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.596

12.0, 14.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.364

0.847

-1.30, 2.02

0.668

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.310

0.649

-0.961, 1.58

0.634

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.007

0.934

-1.82, 1.84

0.994

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq

(Intercept)

27.8

0.979

25.9, 29.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.936

1.391

-1.79, 3.66

0.502

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.525

1.116

-1.66, 2.71

0.640

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.280

1.607

-3.43, 2.87

0.862

Pseudo R square

0.004

empower

(Intercept)

18.8

0.597

17.7, 20.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.10

0.848

-0.565, 2.76

0.198

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.212

0.556

-0.879, 1.30

0.705

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.576

0.802

-2.15, 0.995

0.475

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.3

0.353

13.6, 15.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.666

0.502

-0.318, 1.65

0.187

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.070

0.463

-0.837, 0.978

0.880

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.235

0.666

-1.07, 1.54

0.725

Pseudo R square

0.023

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.1

0.439

11.3, 13.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.42

0.624

-2.64, -0.195

0.025

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.411

0.452

-1.30, 0.475

0.367

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.366

0.651

-0.910, 1.64

0.576

Pseudo R square

0.043

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.501

9.43, 11.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.812

0.712

-2.21, 0.584

0.257

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.046

0.500

-0.934, 1.03

0.927

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.14

0.720

-2.55, 0.275

0.120

Pseudo R square

0.037

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.525

9.19, 11.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.14

0.746

-2.60, 0.327

0.131

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.116

0.542

-1.18, 0.947

0.832

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.597

0.781

-2.13, 0.933

0.447

Pseudo R square

0.035

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.57

0.509

7.57, 9.57

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.05

0.724

-2.47, 0.370

0.150

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.606

0.527

-0.426, 1.64

0.254

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.17

0.759

-2.66, 0.314

0.127

Pseudo R square

0.044

sss

(Intercept)

29.2

1.413

26.4, 32.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.00

2.008

-6.93, 0.939

0.138

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.534

1.321

-2.06, 3.12

0.688

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.89

1.904

-6.62, 0.839

0.134

Pseudo R square

0.043

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.16 (95% CI [2.84, 3.48], t(147) = 19.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.32], t(147) = -0.59, p = 0.554; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.61], t(147) = 0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.11], t(147) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.95])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.76 (95% CI [16.99, 18.54], t(147) = 44.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.46], t(147) = 0.63, p = 0.528; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.31, 0.86], t(147) = -0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.97, 2.15], t(147) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.76])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.73 (95% CI [28.32, 31.13], t(147) = 41.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.18, 2.81], t(147) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.31], t(147) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-1.15, 3.18], t(147) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.88 (95% CI [11.33, 12.44], t(147) = 41.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.09], t(147) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.23, -0.05], t(147) = -2.13, p = 0.034; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.61, -0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.61], t(147) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.79])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.33 (95% CI [16.46, 18.20], t(147) = 39.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.48], t(147) = 0.39, p = 0.696; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.43, 0.56], t(147) = -0.86, p = 0.390; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [0.11, 2.97], t(147) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.04, 0.93])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.33, 13.91], t(147) = 32.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.37], t(147) = 0.42, p = 0.673; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.16], t(147) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.17], t(147) = 1.70, p = 0.088; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.74])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.27 (95% CI [9.65, 10.90], t(147) = 32.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.53, 0.26], t(147) = -1.39, p = 0.164; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.56], t(147) = -0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.42, 95% CI [0.20, 2.65], t(147) = 2.28, p = 0.023; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.09, 1.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.22 (95% CI [28.60, 33.84], t(147) = 23.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.16, 95% CI [-5.88, 1.57], t(147) = -1.13, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.53, 1.80], t(147) = -0.33, p = 0.742; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-3.99, 2.25], t(147) = -0.55, p = 0.583; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.37 (95% CI [21.08, 23.67], t(147) = 33.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.35, 2.33], t(147) = 0.52, p = 0.604; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.13], t(147) = -0.26, p = 0.793; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.79, 1.96], t(147) = 0.09, p = 0.927; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.92 (95% CI [23.33, 26.51], t(147) = 30.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.93, 3.60], t(147) = 1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.37], t(147) = -1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.65, 3.70], t(147) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.64])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.18 (95% CI [17.28, 21.07], t(147) = 19.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.80, 95% CI [0.11, 5.49], t(147) = 2.04, p = 0.041; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [0.02, 0.79])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.24, 2.98], t(147) = 0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-3.12, 2.96], t(147) = -0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.76 (95% CI [9.72, 11.81], t(147) = 20.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.28], t(147) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.32], t(147) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.83, 0.93], t(147) = -0.64, p = 0.521; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.06 (95% CI [13.49, 16.63], t(147) = 18.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-2.29, 2.17], t(147) = -0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.32], t(147) = 0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.92, 1.97], t(147) = -0.38, p = 0.702; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [19.76, 23.37], t(147) = 23.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.75, 3.38], t(147) = 0.62, p = 0.535; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.66], t(147) = 0.81, p = 0.420; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-3.22, 2.21], t(147) = -0.37, p = 0.715; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.29 (95% CI [15.07, 17.52], t(147) = 26.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.74, 2.75], t(147) = 1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.53], t(147) = 0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.70, 3.35], t(147) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.75])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.16 (95% CI [12.37, 13.94], t(147) = 32.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.18], t(147) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.74])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.40], t(147) = -1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.96], t(147) = 0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.67 (95% CI [15.82, 17.51], t(147) = 38.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.18], t(147) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.20], t(147) = 0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.56], t(147) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.96 (95% CI [11.07, 12.85], t(147) = 26.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.58, 95% CI [0.32, 2.84], t(147) = 2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.10, 0.87])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.44], t(147) = 1.52, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.86], t(147) = -0.52, p = 0.601; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.63 (95% CI [27.03, 30.22], t(147) = 35.22, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.55, 95% CI [0.29, 4.82], t(147) = 2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [0.05, 0.82])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.33], t(147) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.05], t(147) = -0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.69 (95% CI [25.13, 30.24], t(147) = 21.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.33, 95% CI [-5.96, 1.31], t(147) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-1.20, 3.40], t(147) = 0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.94, 95% CI [-6.26, 0.37], t(147) = -1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.78 (95% CI [12.42, 15.15], t(147) = 19.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.48, 3.39], t(147) = 1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.48], t(147) = 0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.59], t(147) = 0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.02 (95% CI [14.95, 17.09], t(147) = 29.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.52], t(147) = 1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.17], t(147) = 0.24, p = 0.813; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.35], t(147) = -0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.80 (95% CI [27.49, 32.11], t(147) = 25.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.46, 95% CI [-0.83, 5.74], t(147) = 1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-1.94, 2.44], t(147) = 0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-2.67, 3.65], t(147) = 0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.88 (95% CI [12.44, 13.32], t(147) = 57.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.19], t(147) = -1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.53], t(147) = -0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.27], t(147) = 0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.81])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.61 (95% CI [13.66, 15.56], t(147) = 30.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.92], t(147) = 0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.40], t(147) = 0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.40], t(147) = -0.37, p = 0.715; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.03, 14.36], t(147) = 22.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.02], t(147) = 0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.58], t(147) = 0.48, p = 0.633; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 7.17e-03, 95% CI [-1.82, 1.84], t(147) = 7.67e-03, p = 0.994; Std. beta = 1.70e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.80 (95% CI [25.89, 29.72], t(147) = 28.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-1.79, 3.66], t(147) = 0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.66, 2.71], t(147) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-3.43, 2.87], t(147) = -0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.84 (95% CI [17.67, 20.01], t(147) = 31.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.56, 2.76], t(147) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.30], t(147) = 0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-2.15, 1.00], t(147) = -0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.31 (95% CI [13.62, 15.01], t(147) = 40.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.65], t(147) = 1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.98], t(147) = 0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.54], t(147) = 0.35, p = 0.724; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.14 (95% CI [11.28, 13.00], t(147) = 27.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.64, -0.19], t(147) = -2.27, p = 0.023; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.82, -0.06])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.48], t(147) = -0.91, p = 0.363; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.64], t(147) = 0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.41 (95% CI [9.43, 11.39], t(147) = 20.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-2.21, 0.58], t(147) = -1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.03], t(147) = 0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.55, 0.28], t(147) = -1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.22 (95% CI [9.19, 11.24], t(147) = 19.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.33], t(147) = -1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.95], t(147) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.93], t(147) = -0.76, p = 0.444; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.57 (95% CI [7.57, 9.57], t(147) = 16.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.47, 0.37], t(147) = -1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.64], t(147) = 1.15, p = 0.250; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.31], t(147) = -1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.20 (95% CI [26.43, 31.96], t(147) = 20.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.00, 95% CI [-6.93, 0.94], t(147) = -1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-2.06, 3.12], t(147) = 0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.89, 95% CI [-6.62, 0.84], t(147) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

483.107

492.198

-238.553

477.107

recovery_stage_a

random

6

483.850

502.033

-235.925

471.850

5.257

3

0.154

recovery_stage_b

null

3

746.911

756.002

-370.455

740.911

recovery_stage_b

random

6

751.216

769.398

-369.608

739.216

1.695

3

0.638

ras_confidence

null

3

912.211

921.303

-453.106

906.211

ras_confidence

random

6

910.691

928.874

-449.346

898.691

7.520

3

0.057

ras_willingness

null

3

626.880

635.971

-310.440

620.880

ras_willingness

random

6

626.530

644.712

-307.265

614.530

6.350

3

0.096

ras_goal

null

3

770.353

779.444

-382.176

764.353

ras_goal

random

6

769.916

788.099

-378.958

757.916

6.436

3

0.092

ras_reliance

null

3

736.030

745.121

-365.015

730.030

ras_reliance

random

6

730.583

748.765

-359.291

718.583

11.447

3

0.010

ras_domination

null

3

685.524

694.615

-339.762

679.524

ras_domination

random

6

684.693

702.876

-336.347

672.693

6.830

3

0.078

symptom

null

3

1,073.717

1,082.809

-533.859

1,067.717

symptom

random

6

1,076.740

1,094.922

-532.370

1,064.740

2.978

3

0.395

slof_work

null

3

874.335

883.426

-434.167

868.335

slof_work

random

6

879.914

898.096

-433.957

867.914

0.421

3

0.936

slof_relationship

null

3

936.813

945.904

-465.407

930.813

slof_relationship

random

6

937.862

956.045

-462.931

925.862

4.951

3

0.175

satisfaction

null

3

1,005.325

1,014.416

-499.663

999.325

satisfaction

random

6

1,005.630

1,023.813

-496.815

993.630

5.695

3

0.127

mhc_emotional

null

3

800.792

809.884

-397.396

794.792

mhc_emotional

random

6

805.348

823.530

-396.674

793.348

1.445

3

0.695

mhc_social

null

3

940.269

949.360

-467.135

934.269

mhc_social

random

6

945.674

963.857

-466.837

933.674

0.595

3

0.898

mhc_psychological

null

3

980.062

989.153

-487.031

974.062

mhc_psychological

random

6

985.033

1,003.215

-486.516

973.033

1.029

3

0.794

resilisnce

null

3

875.978

885.070

-434.989

869.978

resilisnce

random

6

875.505

893.688

-431.753

863.505

6.473

3

0.091

social_provision

null

3

742.211

751.302

-368.105

736.211

social_provision

random

6

741.469

759.652

-364.735

729.469

6.741

3

0.081

els_value_living

null

3

758.338

767.429

-376.169

752.338

els_value_living

random

6

760.266

778.449

-374.133

748.266

4.072

3

0.254

els_life_fulfill

null

3

758.151

767.242

-376.075

752.151

els_life_fulfill

random

6

755.619

773.802

-371.810

743.619

8.531

3

0.036

els

null

3

937.304

946.396

-465.652

931.304

els

random

6

935.999

954.182

-462.000

923.999

7.305

3

0.063

social_connect

null

3

1,077.709

1,086.801

-535.855

1,071.709

social_connect

random

6

1,077.480

1,095.662

-532.740

1,065.480

6.230

3

0.101

shs_agency

null

3

892.385

901.476

-443.192

886.385

shs_agency

random

6

894.205

912.387

-441.102

882.205

4.180

3

0.243

shs_pathway

null

3

814.123

823.214

-404.061

808.123

shs_pathway

random

6

818.394

836.577

-403.197

806.394

1.728

3

0.631

shs

null

3

1,048.576

1,057.667

-521.288

1,042.576

shs

random

6

1,051.517

1,069.699

-519.758

1,039.517

3.059

3

0.383

esteem

null

3

575.576

584.667

-284.788

569.576

esteem

random

6

579.411

597.593

-283.705

567.411

2.165

3

0.539

mlq_search

null

3

799.881

808.973

-396.941

793.881

mlq_search

random

6

805.160

823.342

-396.580

793.160

0.722

3

0.868

mlq_presence

null

3

850.453

859.544

-422.226

844.453

mlq_presence

random

6

855.782

873.965

-421.891

843.782

0.670

3

0.880

mlq

null

3

1,006.438

1,015.530

-500.219

1,000.438

mlq

random

6

1,011.736

1,029.918

-499.868

999.736

0.703

3

0.873

empower

null

3

837.517

846.608

-415.758

831.517

empower

random

6

841.622

859.805

-414.811

829.622

1.895

3

0.594

ismi_resistance

null

3

708.686

717.777

-351.343

702.686

ismi_resistance

random

6

711.697

729.880

-349.849

699.697

2.988

3

0.393

ismi_discrimation

null

3

756.677

765.768

-375.338

750.677

ismi_discrimation

random

6

756.998

775.180

-372.499

744.998

5.679

3

0.128

sss_affective

null

3

795.782

804.874

-394.891

789.782

sss_affective

random

6

794.654

812.836

-391.327

782.654

7.128

3

0.068

sss_behavior

null

3

811.105

820.196

-402.552

805.105

sss_behavior

random

6

812.123

830.306

-400.061

800.123

4.982

3

0.173

sss_cognitive

null

3

803.336

812.427

-398.668

797.336

sss_cognitive

random

6

802.954

821.137

-395.477

790.954

6.381

3

0.094

sss

null

3

1,106.609

1,115.701

-550.305

1,100.609

sss

random

6

1,105.666

1,123.849

-546.833

1,093.666

6.943

3

0.074

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

51

3.16 ± 1.16

50

3.02 ± 1.16

0.555

0.139

recovery_stage_a

2nd

27

3.29 ± 1.15

-0.139

25

3.58 ± 1.15

-0.567

0.375

-0.289

recovery_stage_b

1st

51

17.76 ± 2.83

50

18.12 ± 2.83

0.529

-0.162

recovery_stage_b

2nd

27

17.54 ± 2.74

0.101

25

18.49 ± 2.73

-0.167

0.216

-0.430

ras_confidence

1st

51

29.73 ± 5.12

50

30.54 ± 5.12

0.426

-0.278

ras_confidence

2nd

27

30.53 ± 4.56

-0.275

25

32.36 ± 4.52

-0.622

0.148

-0.625

ras_willingness

1st

51

11.88 ± 2.03

50

12.18 ± 2.03

0.462

-0.258

ras_willingness

2nd

27

11.24 ± 1.80

0.556

25

12.29 ± 1.79

-0.097

0.036

-0.911

ras_goal

1st

51

17.33 ± 3.17

50

17.58 ± 3.17

0.697

-0.127

ras_goal

2nd

27

16.90 ± 2.88

0.223

25

18.69 ± 2.86

-0.569

0.026

-0.919

ras_reliance

1st

51

13.12 ± 2.88

50

13.36 ± 2.88

0.674

-0.155

ras_reliance

2nd

27

13.48 ± 2.53

-0.228

25

14.73 ± 2.51

-0.872

0.075

-0.799

ras_domination

1st

51

10.27 ± 2.29

50

9.64 ± 2.29

0.167

0.371

ras_domination

2nd

27

9.99 ± 2.20

0.168

25

10.77 ± 2.19

-0.662

0.199

-0.460

symptom

1st

51

31.22 ± 9.54

50

29.06 ± 9.54

0.259

0.519

symptom

2nd

27

30.85 ± 7.94

0.087

25

27.82 ± 7.83

0.298

0.168

0.730

slof_work

1st

51

22.37 ± 4.72

50

22.86 ± 4.72

0.605

-0.193

slof_work

2nd

27

22.20 ± 4.13

0.069

25

22.77 ± 4.09

0.034

0.614

-0.227

slof_relationship

1st

51

24.92 ± 5.80

50

26.26 ± 5.80

0.249

-0.458

slof_relationship

2nd

27

23.78 ± 5.00

0.391

25

26.64 ± 4.94

-0.131

0.039

-0.980

satisfaction

1st

51

19.18 ± 6.89

50

21.98 ± 6.89

0.043

-0.677

satisfaction

2nd

27

20.05 ± 6.22

-0.210

25

22.77 ± 6.17

-0.191

0.115

-0.658

mhc_emotional

1st

51

10.76 ± 3.80

50

11.56 ± 3.80

0.295

-0.430

mhc_emotional

2nd

27

11.13 ± 3.24

-0.195

25

11.47 ± 3.21

0.049

0.702

-0.185

mhc_social

1st

51

15.06 ± 5.73

50

15.00 ± 5.73

0.959

0.018

mhc_social

2nd

27

15.68 ± 5.11

-0.188

25

15.15 ± 5.07

-0.044

0.706

0.162

mhc_psychological

1st

51

21.57 ± 6.58

50

22.38 ± 6.58

0.537

-0.221

mhc_psychological

2nd

27

22.34 ± 5.81

-0.211

25

22.65 ± 5.76

-0.073

0.849

-0.083

resilisnce

1st

51

16.29 ± 4.47

50

17.30 ± 4.47

0.261

-0.364

resilisnce

2nd

27

16.42 ± 4.07

-0.046

25

18.75 ± 4.04

-0.526

0.040

-0.844

social_provision

1st

51

13.16 ± 2.86

50

14.22 ± 2.86

0.064

-0.578

social_provision

2nd

27

12.62 ± 2.63

0.291

25

14.31 ± 2.61

-0.046

0.022

-0.915

els_value_living

1st

51

16.67 ± 3.08

50

17.64 ± 3.08

0.115

-0.519

els_value_living

2nd

27

16.91 ± 2.79

-0.128

25

18.06 ± 2.77

-0.224

0.137

-0.615

els_life_fulfill

1st

51

11.96 ± 3.24

50

13.54 ± 3.24

0.016

-1.011

els_life_fulfill

2nd

27

12.59 ± 2.76

-0.403

25

13.86 ± 2.73

-0.204

0.098

-0.812

els

1st

51

28.63 ± 5.80

50

31.18 ± 5.80

0.029

-0.892

els

2nd

27

29.48 ± 4.97

-0.298

25

31.94 ± 4.91

-0.267

0.074

-0.862

social_connect

1st

51

27.69 ± 9.31

50

25.36 ± 9.31

0.212

0.525

social_connect

2nd

27

28.79 ± 7.91

-0.248

25

23.52 ± 7.81

0.416

0.017

1.189

shs_agency

1st

51

13.78 ± 4.97

50

15.24 ± 4.97

0.143

-0.556

shs_agency

2nd

27

13.91 ± 4.32

-0.048

25

16.01 ± 4.28

-0.294

0.081

-0.802

shs_pathway

1st

51

16.02 ± 3.89

50

17.02 ± 3.89

0.199

-0.495

shs_pathway

2nd

27

16.15 ± 3.38

-0.062

25

16.99 ± 3.34

0.016

0.367

-0.417

shs

1st

51

29.80 ± 8.41

50

32.26 ± 8.41

0.145

-0.580

shs

2nd

27

30.06 ± 7.24

-0.060

25

33.00 ± 7.16

-0.176

0.142

-0.696

esteem

1st

51

12.88 ± 1.61

50

12.44 ± 1.61

0.169

0.350

esteem

2nd

27

12.79 ± 1.56

0.076

25

12.72 ± 1.56

-0.221

0.879

0.052

mlq_search

1st

51

14.61 ± 3.46

50

15.18 ± 3.46

0.408

-0.241

mlq_search

2nd

27

14.82 ± 3.24

-0.088

25

15.07 ± 3.23

0.047

0.780

-0.106

mlq_presence

1st

51

13.20 ± 4.26

50

13.56 ± 4.26

0.668

-0.146

mlq_presence

2nd

27

13.51 ± 3.81

-0.125

25

13.88 ± 3.78

-0.128

0.725

-0.149

mlq

1st

51

27.80 ± 6.99

50

28.74 ± 6.99

0.502

-0.218

mlq

2nd

27

28.33 ± 6.35

-0.122

25

28.98 ± 6.30

-0.057

0.709

-0.153

empower

1st

51

18.84 ± 4.26

50

19.94 ± 4.26

0.198

-0.521

empower

2nd

27

19.06 ± 3.65

-0.101

25

19.58 ± 3.61

0.173

0.606

-0.247

ismi_resistance

1st

51

14.31 ± 2.52

50

14.98 ± 2.52

0.187

-0.367

ismi_resistance

2nd

27

14.38 ± 2.40

-0.039

25

15.29 ± 2.39

-0.168

0.176

-0.497

ismi_discrimation

1st

51

12.14 ± 3.13

50

10.72 ± 3.13

0.025

0.822

ismi_discrimation

2nd

27

11.73 ± 2.76

0.238

25

10.68 ± 2.73

0.026

0.170

0.610

sss_affective

1st

51

10.41 ± 3.58

50

9.60 ± 3.58

0.257

0.427

sss_affective

2nd

27

10.46 ± 3.12

-0.024

25

8.51 ± 3.09

0.573

0.025

1.025

sss_behavior

1st

51

10.22 ± 3.75

50

9.08 ± 3.75

0.131

0.549

sss_behavior

2nd

27

10.10 ± 3.30

0.056

25

8.37 ± 3.27

0.345

0.060

0.838

sss_cognitive

1st

51

8.57 ± 3.64

50

7.52 ± 3.64

0.150

0.522

sss_cognitive

2nd

27

9.17 ± 3.21

-0.302

25

6.95 ± 3.18

0.282

0.013

1.106

sss

1st

51

29.20 ± 10.09

50

26.20 ± 10.09

0.138

0.599

sss

2nd

27

29.73 ± 8.65

-0.107

25

23.84 ± 8.55

0.472

0.015

1.177

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(141.47) = -0.59, p = 0.555, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.32)

2st

t(147.83) = 0.89, p = 0.375, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.91)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(135.39) = 0.63, p = 0.529, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.47)

2st

t(147.47) = 1.24, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.44)

ras_confidence

1st

t(117.79) = 0.80, p = 0.426, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.20 to 2.83)

2st

t(148.99) = 1.45, p = 0.148, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.66 to 4.32)

ras_willingness

1st

t(117.73) = 0.74, p = 0.462, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.10)

2st

t(148.99) = 2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.07 to 2.04)

ras_goal

1st

t(120.98) = 0.39, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.50)

2st

t(148.72) = 2.25, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (0.22 to 3.36)

ras_reliance

1st

t(115.82) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.38)

2st

t(148.93) = 1.79, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.63)

ras_domination

1st

t(132.58) = -1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.27)

2st

t(147.50) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.99)

symptom

1st

t(109.34) = -1.13, p = 0.259, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-5.92 to 1.61)

2st

t(145.13) = -1.38, p = 0.168, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-7.35 to 1.30)

slof_work

1st

t(115.32) = 0.52, p = 0.605, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.35)

2st

t(148.87) = 0.50, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.68 to 2.83)

slof_relationship

1st

t(113.23) = 1.16, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.95 to 3.63)

2st

t(148.32) = 2.08, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.14 to 5.59)

satisfaction

1st

t(119.99) = 2.04, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.09 to 5.52)

2st

t(148.83) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.67 to 6.12)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(112.21) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.29)

2st

t(147.82) = 0.38, p = 0.702, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.11)

mhc_social

1st

t(118.30) = -0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.32 to 2.20)

2st

t(148.97) = -0.38, p = 0.706, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.33 to 2.26)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(116.76) = 0.62, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.78 to 3.40)

2st

t(148.99) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.87 to 3.48)

resilisnce

1st

t(121.33) = 1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.77)

2st

t(148.67) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (0.11 to 4.55)

social_provision

1st

t(123.47) = 1.87, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.19)

2st

t(148.38) = 2.32, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (0.25 to 3.12)

els_value_living

1st

t(120.66) = 1.59, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.19)

2st

t(148.76) = 1.50, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.68)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(111.92) = 2.45, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (0.30 to 2.86)

2st

t(147.64) = 1.67, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.77)

els

1st

t(112.56) = 2.21, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (0.26 to 4.84)

2st

t(148.01) = 1.80, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.24 to 5.17)

social_connect

1st

t(111.56) = -1.26, p = 0.212, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-6.00 to 1.35)

2st

t(147.39) = -2.42, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 1.19, 95% CI (-9.58 to -0.96)

shs_agency

1st

t(114.74) = 1.47, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.50 to 3.41)

2st

t(148.77) = 1.76, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.26 to 4.46)

shs_pathway

1st

t(114.22) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.53)

2st

t(148.65) = 0.90, p = 0.367, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.00 to 2.69)

shs

1st

t(113.22) = 1.47, p = 0.145, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.86 to 5.77)

2st

t(148.32) = 1.47, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-1.00 to 6.90)

esteem

1st

t(136.31) = -1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.19)

2st

t(147.49) = -0.15, p = 0.879, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.79)

mlq_search

1st

t(127.02) = 0.83, p = 0.408, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.94)

2st

t(147.93) = 0.28, p = 0.780, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.03)

mlq_presence

1st

t(118.71) = 0.43, p = 0.668, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.04)

2st

t(148.95) = 0.35, p = 0.725, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.71 to 2.45)

mlq

1st

t(121.09) = 0.67, p = 0.502, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.82 to 3.69)

2st

t(148.70) = 0.37, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.81 to 4.12)

empower

1st

t(112.66) = 1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.78)

2st

t(148.06) = 0.52, p = 0.606, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.51)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(130.10) = 1.33, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.66)

2st

t(147.64) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.21)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(116.28) = -2.27, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-2.65 to -0.18)

2st

t(148.97) = -1.38, p = 0.170, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.56 to 0.46)

sss_affective

1st

t(115.00) = -1.14, p = 0.257, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.22 to 0.60)

2st

t(148.82) = -2.26, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-3.65 to -0.24)

sss_behavior

1st

t(116.36) = -1.52, p = 0.131, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.61 to 0.34)

2st

t(148.98) = -1.90, p = 0.060, Cohen d = 0.84, 95% CI (-3.54 to 0.07)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(116.44) = -1.45, p = 0.150, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.48 to 0.39)

2st

t(148.98) = -2.51, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-3.97 to -0.47)

sss

1st

t(112.75) = -1.49, p = 0.138, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-6.97 to 0.98)

2st

t(148.10) = -2.47, p = 0.015, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-10.61 to -1.17)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(75.94) = 2.20, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.06)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(70.84) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.52)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(59.79) = 2.28, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.23 to 3.41)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(59.75) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.74)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(61.58) = 2.10, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.16)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(58.70) = 3.19, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (0.51 to 2.22)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(68.82) = 2.51, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.03)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(55.26) = -1.08, p = 0.573, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.54 to 1.07)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(58.43) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.30)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(57.31) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.99)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(61.02) = 0.71, p = 0.967, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.45 to 3.04)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(56.77) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.93)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(60.07) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.95)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(59.22) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.27)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(61.78) = 1.95, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.04 to 2.95)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(63.03) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.07)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(61.40) = 0.83, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.44)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(56.61) = 0.74, p = 0.923, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.18)

els

1st vs 2st

t(56.95) = 0.97, p = 0.672, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.34)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(56.42) = -1.51, p = 0.273, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-4.29 to 0.60)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(58.12) = 1.07, p = 0.576, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.20)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(57.84) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.08)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(57.31) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.07)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(71.53) = 0.85, p = 0.801, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.94)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(65.18) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.38 to 1.15)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(60.30) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.67)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(61.65) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.08 to 2.57)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(57.00) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.52 to 0.80)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(67.14) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.27)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(58.96) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.90)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(58.26) = -2.09, p = 0.081, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.13 to -0.05)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(59.00) = -1.26, p = 0.423, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.42)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(59.04) = -1.03, p = 0.611, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.66 to 0.53)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(57.05) = -1.72, p = 0.184, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-5.11 to 0.40)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(74.15) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.63)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(69.42) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.89)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(59.16) = 1.05, p = 0.599, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.34)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(59.13) = -2.12, p = 0.077, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.25 to -0.04)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(60.83) = -0.86, p = 0.791, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.58)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(58.15) = 0.87, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.18)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(67.55) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.58)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(54.93) = -0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.58 to 1.86)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(57.90) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.16)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(56.85) = -1.48, p = 0.290, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.41)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(60.31) = 0.80, p = 0.848, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.29 to 3.04)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(56.34) = 0.74, p = 0.931, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.34)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(59.42) = 0.72, p = 0.953, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.12 to 2.36)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(58.63) = 0.80, p = 0.851, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.16 to 2.70)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(61.02) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.57)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(62.18) = -1.12, p = 0.535, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.49 to 0.42)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(60.66) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.22)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(56.20) = 1.52, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.46)

els

1st vs 2st

t(56.52) = 1.12, p = 0.533, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.37)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(56.02) = 0.93, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.26 to 3.46)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(57.60) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.26 to 1.51)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(57.35) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.20)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(56.85) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.99 to 2.50)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(70.07) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.54)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(64.17) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.43)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(59.63) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.61)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(60.89) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.72 to 2.77)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(56.56) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.33)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(66.00) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.00)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(58.38) = -0.91, p = 0.738, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.32 to 0.50)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(57.74) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.05)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(58.42) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.97)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(58.46) = 1.15, p = 0.513, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.66)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(56.61) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.12 to 3.19)

Plot

Clinical significance